Industrial heritage in the hosting of mega-events: assessing the potential for urban redevelopment and social change?

Mega-events, whether sporting (Olympics, World Cup, etc.) or cultural (Exhibitions), are unique moments to study urban dynamics, especially with regard to image and identity construction (Andranovich et al. 2001; Smith 2012; Gold and Gold 2016). For cities and nations alike, mega-events represent unique opportunities to showcase the best of what they have to offer, hoping to bolster tourism and attract inward foreign investment (Grix and Lee 2013; Hayes and Karamichas 2012; Müller and Gaffney 2018). They are important drivers of the urban intervention meant to build a favourable place-image and yield positive economic returns.

Over the last few decades, critical studies have highlighted how mega-events downplay, or actively invisibilise, their negative impacts on urban dynamics, in terms of growing economic inequality, social polarisation, politics of exclusion, and resident’s dispossession, leading to multiple forms of mega-events’ resistance and opposition (Gruneau and Horne 2015; Sanchez and Broudehoux 2013). Some scholars (Pillay and Bass 2008) have described the resulting material and immaterial transformations in terms of social engineering, while others talk of sustainability and inclusive development goals (Broudehoux 2017; Stanton 2005, 2019). While mega-events are not the only factors influencing local change, they do exacerbate existing trends and, as such, act as a magnifying glass to reveal with clear clarity the interests and values of local decision-makers, especially in terms of heritage preservation.

Heritage plays a major part in destination branding and attractiveness. Processes and negotiations among individual and institutional actors to identify, acknowledge, and convey a property’s heritage designation are paramount, as they pertain to meanings associated with memory, identity, and space (Carter et al. 2020). In particular, built heritage is an essential element of the urban landscape, a material bearer of values and meaning. It can be a major asset, as an element of cultural offer that can attest to the city’s historical rootedness and level of cultural sophistication. It can also act as a testimony to its trustworthiness as a safe location for investment and tourism.

Local states increasingly mobilise industrial heritage sites to host mega-events as a strategy to promote urban development, place branding, and societal change (Theurillat and Graezer Bideau 2022). Led by public-private coalitions of interest that remain faithful to the urban entrepreneurialism governance strategies described by Harvey a few decades ago (Harvey 1989), these endeavours impact both infrastructure and landmark development, as well as ecological and social environments. The paper by Graezer Bideau, Deng and Roux compares dominant discourses surrounding the reuse of industrial heritage in the context of mega-events. Specifically, it analyses the Shanghai 2010 World Expo and the London 2012 Summer Olympic Games. Meanwhile, Zhang’s paper examines state-led strategies in Guangzhou, Shanghai and Beijing from 2010 to 2022.

Mega-events will, therefore, influence what and how heritage is being valued, exploited, and interpreted. As a selective process, dictated by the needs, values and aspirations of contemporary society as well as those imagined to be held by external visitors, heritage preservation can easily be instrumentalised for the purpose of the event or become a key asset in its success. The expediency with which event-related urban transformations are undertaken is often incompatible with heritage preservation, which requires lengthy and careful assessment, public consultation and negotiations over use and interpretation (Gruneau and Horne 2015; Jones 2017; Ponzini 2012).

Recent years have brought to light the sustainability aspect of heritage preservation, a dimension that mega-events have increasingly capitalised upon. The hosting of mega-events has justified the adaptive reuse and redevelopment of degraded, abandoned, or underused brownfields or industrial sites to be incorporated into the city. These interventions have the potential to maintain continuity with the area’s past uses while also limiting the need for new construction, thereby favouring an approach that exploits the embedded potential of existing buildings (Elefante 2012). While it remains to be proven whether such approaches actually reduce the carbon footprint of such mega-scale events, the cultural and symbolic value of conserving part of the city’s industrial past and integrating it into the urban fabric with new contemporary uses is not to be neglected. By maintaining continuity, it serves a pedagogical function and pays tribute to communities whose lives were historically tied to such sites.

The role of industrial heritage in guiding and legitimising public policies and discourse about urban development has been extensively acknowledged, especially as a way to ensure the continuity between the past, present and future (Wicke et al. 2018; Gardner 2019). However, these transformations are not evenly embraced by local population groups and can lead to debates, tensions, even conflicts, depending on socio-political context and implementation models, especially regarding socio-economic impacts and dispossession. A comparison of various contexts in which the organisation of mega-events impacts industrial heritage is crucial to better identify common trends and local variations.

This special issue of Built Heritage covers a range of events, including sporting mega-events, world exhibitions and European Capital of Culture, held on various forms of industrial sites, from waterfront port areas, to brownfields, canals districts, and other former industrial sites. The special issue brings together researchers from various disciplinary perspectives, from urban design, architecture, urban studies, geography, anthropology, sociology, and humanities. The many case-studies also cover a vast geographical territory, that spans Asia (Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou), Europe (Elesfina, Pafos, Liverpool) and Latin America (Rio de Janeiro).

Articles in this special issue aimed to identify common trends in the relationships between the organisation of mega-events and the use and preservation of industrial heritage, with, of course, many local variations. These trends can be summarised in four broad categories based on the event’s level of interest in industrial heritage.

• 1. Limited interest

  This first category includes cases where mega-events make use of repurposed post-industrial sites without necessarily preserving their built heritage. This happens, for example, when there is dissonance between the industrial nature of the site and mega-events objectives, both short and long-term. In these scenarios, heritage is seen as an impediment to either the message conveyed by the event or the longer-term pursuits of economic development and project profitability. It can result in the demolition of built heritage and the large-scale, spatial reconstruction of the entire area or in the toning down of the industrial nature of the site. It often leads to both spatial and social separations between the regenerated site and its surroundings.

• 2. Instrumental interest

  This second category is characterised by a superficial or pragmatic interest in industrial heritage, which is instrumentalised as an element of territorial branding. Built heritage is preserved as a mere theatrical prop, used as landmarks with no real commitment to conservation or recognition of heritage value. Industrial buildings and facilities are seen as stylised aesthetic objects and used as mere containers to house event-related cultural or to showcase commercial activities without paying tribute to their particular history. Due to their limited operating time and external decision-making power, major events often dictate heritage interpretation and subsequent material interventions in the service of the event itself. As a result, the rich cultural connotations and collective memories carried by industrial heritage are susceptible to oversimplification, as demonstrated in the paper of Latuf de Oliveira Sanchez analysing the urban design of the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games. The preserved elements are hollowed out of their social and historical content and thus lose all educational value. The collective memories they carry may be fragmented and marginalised, with only certain aspects being integrated into the dominant narrative.

• 3. Substantial, mutual interest

  In this third category, built heritage is embraced as a central aspect of the event, a positive asset, and a valued cultural artefact. This scenario puts forward the mutual benefits of both the event and its industrial setting. The event contributes to highlighting and promoting this heritage as an important asset and a rich context for future urban development. It acts as an impetus to rediscover industrial heritage and a role in activating the local agency that would ultimately defend this heritage. In this issue, the paper of Jones and Wang is representative of the specific interactions between industrial heritage and European Capitals of Culture as illustrated by the examples of 2023 Elefsina, 2017 Pafos or 2008 Liverpool. Wang’s paper analyses the post-Expo evolution and renewal of Shanghai’s Huangpu River industrial zone, showing the redevelopment initiatives that led to the reconfiguration of the industrial waterfront into a dynamic cultural landscape. The event can also provide opportunities to valorise and promote the intangible aspects of industrial heritage that are often overlooked. Specific industrial buildings or facilities are creatively reused, in ways that preserve their nature as tangible carriers of collective memory. In return, industrial heritage adds value to the event, not only as a green and progressive endeavour but can enrich the user experience by turning the event into an educational opportunity. It also acts as a showcase for innovative urban transformation achievements to domestic and international audiences. The paper of Broudehoux in this issue is emblematic of the importance of preserving the Valongo wharf as a site of collective pain and suffering for enhancing the memory of slavery in Rio de Janeiro.

• 4. Legacy interest

  In this fourth category, the event itself is the main contribution to heritage with the construction of iconic buildings. The preservation of the remaining buildings is triggered by their repurposing for other functions or by their standing as historical testimonies for future generations. The legacy of mega-events seldom comprises industrial buildings except for some World Expos, like the Crystal Palace Exhibition in 1851 or the Eiffel Tower in 1889. For example, in his discussion, Honisch’s paper refers to the importance of showcasing economic and cultural relevance within the first World’s Fairs.

These articles reveal some of the challenges faced by host cities in balancing the complex demands of large events with those of heritage preservation while also promoting long-term economic development. More research is required to properly assess the long-term effectiveness of the reuse of industrial heritage in terms of post-event repurpose and to address the gap between official discourse on heritage preservation and the actual level of conservation.